Iowa Supreme Court orders new trial over child’s video testimony in sex abuse case

The Iowa Supreme Court, in a split decision, has ordered a new trial for a West Des Moines doctor, convicted of sexually abusing a child under the age of 10, over the use of one-way video testimony.

In its opinion filed Tuesday, the court vacated the conviction of Lynn Melvin Lindaman, who was found guilty of second-degree sexual abuse by a Polk County jury last year. A four-justice majority held that allowing the child to testify via one-way closed-circuit television — rather than in Lindaman’s physical presence — denied him his state constitutional right to face his accuser in court.

The decision sends the case back to district court for a new trial.

Justice Christopher McDonald, writing for the majority, said the court’s 2024 decision in State v. White controlled the outcome. In that case, the court ruled that Iowa’s Constitution guarantees face-to-face confrontation and does not allow exceptions for remote testimony, even for child witnesses.

“Section 915.38 clearly and palpably violates the fundamental law of the state constitution,” McDonald wrote, referring to the Iowa statute that authorizes closed-circuit testimony for minors in certain cases.

  Buy Photo

McDonald rejected the State’s argument that the court’s 2024 decision is bad policy because it “traumatizes victims every single time it applies.” McDonald said that claim rests on a false premise, noting that not every accusation is true and that some cases involve false or mistaken accusers who would not be traumatized by testifying in a defendant’s presence. While stressing the court was not suggesting that was the case here, he said the risk of wrongful convictions — including in child sex abuse cases — is real.

McDonald wrote that although the court does not minimize the emotional distress confronting an accused might cause a witness, that concern was known to the framers of Iowa’s Constitution, who nevertheless enshrined face-to-face confrontation as a safeguard against false or incorrect accusations. Policy arguments about trauma, he said, cannot override constitutional commands, because the Iowa Constitution is “the supreme law of the state,” and courts are not free to subordinate it to legislative preferences.

Dissent: Procedure protected child while preserving rights

Justice Edward Mansfield did not participate, but Justice Thomas Waterman dissented, joined by Chief Justice Susan Christensen. Waterman said the majority’s approach continues an “affront to young victims of unspeakable crimes who are brave enough to testify against their abusers, arguing that the procedure used in Lindaman’s trial — where jurors and the defendant could see and hear the child live while defense counsel cross-examined her in the same room — satisfied the core purposes of the constitutional clause.

“No other state has declined to follow” the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing such testimony to protect children, Waterman wrote, noting Iowa now “stands alone.”

  Buy Photo

Although the majority ordered a new trial, the court rejected Lindaman’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

The justices said the child’s testimony alone was enough under Iowa law and was corroborated by other evidence, including Lindaman’s statements to other people and medical findings.

The court emphasized that credibility determinations are for jurors, not appellate judges.

Wife’s testimony allowed

Lindaman also argued the trial court erred by allowing his wife to testify about statements he made to her after being confronted with the allegation, claiming marital privilege.

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an exception applies in child abuse cases. That issue, the court said, is likely to arise again on retrial.

The State cross-appealed the trial court’s decision suppressing Lindaman’s confession to investigators, which jurors never heard at his first trial.

The Supreme Court sided with prosecutors, ruling that officers did not violate Lindaman’s statutory right under Iowa Code to make a phone call to a family member or attorney after his arrest. The court found Lindaman had been given access to a phone and told he could make a call but chose not to do so.

The justices also rejected Lindaman’s argument that his constitutional right to counsel was violated, concluding he reinitiated conversation with officers after initially saying he would “probably like to have my lawyer present,” and later knowingly waived his Miranda rights.

As a result, the confession could be admissible at any retrial.

Lawmakers, AG push constitutional amendment

The ruling lands amid an ongoing push by state lawmakers and the Iowa Attorney General to amend the Iowa Constitution to allow children and vulnerable witnesses to testify remotely.

For years, Iowa law permitted certain child witnesses to testify from a remote location in front of a judge. But last year’s State v. White decision — now reaffirmed in Lindaman’s case — held that such testimony violates the state Constitution’s confrontation clause.

That has made Iowa the only state in the country that does not permit remote testimony from children in criminal cases.

In response, Attorney General Brenna Bird proposed a constitutional amendment to clarify that the right to confront an accuser can include exceptions set by state law to protect children and individuals with mental illness or intellectual or developmental disabilities.

  Buy Photo

The proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 9, passed the Senate unanimously, 47-0, and cleared the House this year on an 87-6 bipartisan vote.

Under Iowa law, constitutional amendments must be approved by two consecutive General Assemblies and then ratified by voters. The measure must pass again in either the 2027 or 2028 session before it could appear on the 2028 general election ballot.

Supporters argue the amendment is necessary to protect vulnerable witnesses from trauma while still allowing prosecutions to move forward. Critics say it would weaken defendants’ constitutional rights.

Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com